User login
Evolution of ECMO. COVID-19 and pulmonary aspergillus. Lung cancer screening. Food as medicine. Air pollution.
Cardiovascular medicine and surgery
Evolution of ECMO as a result of COVID
A year and a half ago, the enormity of this pandemic was only beginning to be realized. Likewise, we have never before been so well-equipped to communicate, investigate, and collaborate through modern innovations. Despite our monumental progress with diagnostics and expedited vaccine production, there remain significant challenges with management of infected individuals suffering from severe sequelae after infection such as respiratory failure. Pharmacologic therapies with steroids, antivirals, and targeted immune modulators have demonstrated modest results at best thus far.
Early intubation unsurprisingly resulted in poor outcomes and a return to other established methods using high-flow nasal cannula and noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NIPPV) with a goal of avoiding mechanical ventilation are again the standard of care (Rola P, et al. Clin Exp Emerg Med. 2020 Jun 10. doi: 10.15441/ceem.20.043). Furthermore, limited resources encouraged utilization of established and probably previously underutilized techniques, such as proning with expected improvements in outcomes.
When conventional lung protective mechanical ventilation strategies have been unsuccessful, we have seen improved survival with the incorporation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), especially when cannulated earlier (Giraud R, et al. 2021. Phys Rep). Many centers now offer ECMO support with considerable expertise and trends toward earlier ECMO cannulation, which permit ultraprotective lung ventilation (Schmidt M, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019 Oct 15;200[8]:1002-12). With benefits that parallel early tracheostomy, early ECMO may permit decreased sedation and earlier mobilization, which contribute to improved outcomes (Levin NM, et al. J Clin Med. 2021 Jan 12;10[2]:25). We may be approaching a paradigm shift where ECMO is performed in lieu of mechanical ventilation (Kurihara C, et al. 2018. Crit Care Med. 2018 Nov;46[11]:e1070-e1073). Future randomized clinical trials will need to be designed to answer this question.
Robert Baeten, II, DSc, PA-C, FCCP
NetWork Steering Committee Member
Chest infections
COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis: A cause for concern?
Since the global spread of SARS-CoV-2 more than a year ago, reports of secondary infections with Aspergillus spp. have emerged. Like influenza, there has been speculation that severe COVID-19 pneumonia is a unique risk factor for invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA). This entity has been dubbed CAPA, or COVID-associated pulmonary aspergillosis. While the reported incidence of CAPA has ranged from around 5% to 35% in critically ill patients, it has been difficult to distinguish reports of colonization from true infection as histopathologic evidence of disease has been limited. Using stringent diagnostic criteria, a retrospective review of 145 mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 found the incidence of CAPA to be 4.8% (Fekkar A, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021 Feb 1;203[3]:307-17) which is similar to other non-COVID ARDS series. The authors found solid organ transplant and prolonged steroid treatment to be risk factors. Like other studies, no comparator group was utilized, limiting the conclusions regarding COVID-19 as an independent risk factor for IPA. Diagnostic criteria have been adapted to assist clinicians and allow for future research: Proven infection requires temporal relation with COVID-19 ICU admission and histopathologic evidence of Aspergillus spp. invasion or positive culture from sterile sites (Koehler P, et al. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Dec 14;S1473-3099[20]30847-1).
Aspergillus conidia are ubiquitous in the environment, and the respiratory epithelium and associated cilia act as the first defense against IPA. Distinct from influenza pneumonia, severe COVID-19 causes diffuse alveolar damage and does not appear to cause significant damage to the respiratory epithelium (Borczuk AC, et al. Mod Pathol. 2020;33[11]:2156-68). This coupled with the lack of histopathologic evidence of invasion in most reports of CAPA raises question regarding the extent of the association between COVID-19 and IPA. Nonetheless, immune perturbation caused by COVID-19 immunomodulating therapies, such as corticosteroids and IL-6 inhibitors, may ultimately leave patients susceptible to IPA and other opportunistic infections.
Kelly M. Pennington, MD
Charles S. Dela Cruz, MD
Sebastion Kurz, MD
NetWork Steering Committee Members
Clinical pulmonary medicine
New USPSTF guidelines for lung cancer screening: A step forward
Despite lung cancer being the number one cause of cancer-related death in America, screening for lung cancer remains low, with only 2-16% eligible patients being offered screening since the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation in 2013. New guidelines published in JAMA (Krist AH, et al. JAMA. 2021;325[10]:962-970; Meza R, et al. JAMA. 2021;325[10]:988-97; Jonas DE, at al. JAMA. 2021;325[10]:971-87) have suggested broadening eligibility to those 50-80 years old, who are smokers or previously quit in the past 15 years and have a minimum 20 pack-year smoking history (Grade B recommendation). The change lowers the starting age to 50 and the smoking requirement from 30 to 20 pack-years. Based on Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) modeling, utilized by the UPSTF, this change can result in 503 (vs. 381 in the prior guideline) cancer deaths averted for every 100,000 adults and an estimated 13% reduction in lung cancer mortality and 6,918 life-years gained.
This recommendation will dramatically increase the number of eligible adults for screening by 6.4 million people, an increase of 86% compared with the 2013 guidelines. Most importantly, the decrease in pack-year requirement to 20 is expected to increase eligibility for women and minimize racial disparities. African American men have a higher incidence of lung cancer with less smoke exposure compared with white men. Non-Hispanic Black, Hispanics, American Indian/Alaska Native persons are hoped to have significant benefit from these new recommendations. Original recommendations in the 2013 guideline mirrored the National Lung Screening Trial, in which 91% participants were White. Regardless of these updated recommendations, serious socioeconomic barriers may continue to limit racial/ethnic minorities from accessing high-quality lung cancer screening programs. Besides changing the screening criteria, barriers to access will need to be addressed to achieve maximal benefits of the lung cancer screening program.
Munish Luthra, MD, FCCP
Samantha D’Annunzio, MD
Steering Committee Members
Interprofessional team
Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food – Hippocrates
Recently an article published in The Lancet discussed malnutrition in the patient with COVID-19 infection requiring non-invasive ventilation (NIV) (Turner P, et al. Lancet. 2021 Apr 3;397[10281]:126). It is known that COVID-19 infection causes hyperinflammation and hypercatabolism, resulting in disruption of metabolic pathways leading to muscle wasting, including cardiac muscle dysfunction, muscle weakness, and prolonged fatigue (Singer PJ, et al. 2021. Intensive Med. In press).
Lipids, specifically DHA and EPA, are known to inhibit cyclooxygenase enzyme and may suppress prostaglandin production and block platelet-activating factor. Consumption of carbohydrates with high glycemic indexes can result in free radical synthesis (increasing inflammatory cytokines C reactive protein, tumor necrosis alpha and interleukin-6). Other nutrients known to have an anti-inflammatory role include vitamins A & D, selenium, and copper. Vitamin A is known to enhance an antigen-specific immune response. Probiotics may also play a role in enhancing the immune response (Turner P, et al. 2021. Lancet. 2021 Apr 3;397[10281]:1261).
Patients requiring NIV encounter impaired tolerance to oral nutrition, and enteral nutrition (EN) is prescribed (Singer PJ, et al. 2021. Intensive Med. In press). Advantages of EN are maintenance of gut integrity and intestinal permeability as well as down regulation of the inflammatory response and insulin resistance. Furthermore, negative energy balance is associated with poor outcomes. Better focus on nutrition assessment practices is needed to overcome energy deficits during treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia. An interprofessional team approach increases use of nutritional scores and optimizes nutritional interventions.
If oral nutrition is feasible, prescribing small, frequent meals and high‐protein, calorically dense foods can ensure adequate caloric intake. (Behrens S, et al. Nutr Clin Pract. 2021 Feb;36[1]:105-9). When EN is indicated, the Intensive Care Society endorses the use of fine bore feeding tubes and NIV masks with special nasogastric tube adapters to reduce mask leak. Head-of-bed elevation and avoidance of bolus feeding improve EN tolerance (Pardo T, et al. 2021. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2020 Dec;39[6]:738-9).
*Due to the novelty of this disease information is limited and further study is warranted.
David W. Unkle, MSN, APN, FCCP
Robert Baeten, DMSc, PA-C, FCCP
Nikky Keer, DO
NetWork Steering Committee Members
Occupational and environmental health
Not just COVID in the air
Particulate matter (PM) is a specific type of air pollution referred to by its size in micrometers. A direct correlation has been shown between non-accidental death and PM2.5 concentration with a 1.5% increase in daily mortality (Schwartz J, et al. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 1996 Oct;46[10]:927-39). From 2000-2019, PM2.5 concentrations have steadily decreased over 43% (Environmental Protection Agency). Significant decline in air pollution has occurred early in the COVID-19 pandemic. PM2.5 declined in counties from states instituting early non-essential business closures in the U.S. Additionally, NASA models revealed a nearly 20% drop in global nitrogen dioxide concentrations using a COVID-19-free 2020 model to compare with actual space and ground-based observations since February 2020 (NASA Model Reveals How Much COVID-related Pollution Levels Deviated from the Norm. 2020 Nov 17. The pandemic has shown that there is a significant human behavior-driven contribution to air pollution. The historic fire season of 2020 in the western states contributed to record high air pollution with attributable mortality (Liu X, et al. medRxiv 2020.09.20197921). Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic impeded firefighting response (Burke M, et al. PNAS. 2021;11[2]:e2011048118).
Despite the pandemic related reduction, racial-ethnic disparities continue to exist in consumption of PM2.5. In a model looking at production of PM2.5, defined as consumption by the consumer and exposure as where the product or service originated, African American and Hispanic individuals have up to 12-21% greater pollution exposure within the United States (Tessum CW, et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2019 Mar 26;116[13]:6001-6). PM pollution increased the risk of asthma attacks corresponding to zip codes with higher poverty levels and eligibility to Medicaid (O’Lenick CR, et al. Epidemiol Community Health. 2017 Feb;71[2]:129-36). Other studies have shown people with a lower socioeconomic position, have less education, live nearer to major sources of pollution, greater reliance on public transportation and unemployment are at higher risk from effects of PM pollution (American Lung Association. Disparities in the impact of air pollution.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of Army/Navy/Air Force, Department of Defense, or US government.
Tyler Church, DO
Fellow-in-Training Member
Bathmapriya Balakrishnan, MD
Dixie Harris, MD
NetWork Steering Committee Members
Cardiovascular medicine and surgery
Evolution of ECMO as a result of COVID
A year and a half ago, the enormity of this pandemic was only beginning to be realized. Likewise, we have never before been so well-equipped to communicate, investigate, and collaborate through modern innovations. Despite our monumental progress with diagnostics and expedited vaccine production, there remain significant challenges with management of infected individuals suffering from severe sequelae after infection such as respiratory failure. Pharmacologic therapies with steroids, antivirals, and targeted immune modulators have demonstrated modest results at best thus far.
Early intubation unsurprisingly resulted in poor outcomes and a return to other established methods using high-flow nasal cannula and noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NIPPV) with a goal of avoiding mechanical ventilation are again the standard of care (Rola P, et al. Clin Exp Emerg Med. 2020 Jun 10. doi: 10.15441/ceem.20.043). Furthermore, limited resources encouraged utilization of established and probably previously underutilized techniques, such as proning with expected improvements in outcomes.
When conventional lung protective mechanical ventilation strategies have been unsuccessful, we have seen improved survival with the incorporation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), especially when cannulated earlier (Giraud R, et al. 2021. Phys Rep). Many centers now offer ECMO support with considerable expertise and trends toward earlier ECMO cannulation, which permit ultraprotective lung ventilation (Schmidt M, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019 Oct 15;200[8]:1002-12). With benefits that parallel early tracheostomy, early ECMO may permit decreased sedation and earlier mobilization, which contribute to improved outcomes (Levin NM, et al. J Clin Med. 2021 Jan 12;10[2]:25). We may be approaching a paradigm shift where ECMO is performed in lieu of mechanical ventilation (Kurihara C, et al. 2018. Crit Care Med. 2018 Nov;46[11]:e1070-e1073). Future randomized clinical trials will need to be designed to answer this question.
Robert Baeten, II, DSc, PA-C, FCCP
NetWork Steering Committee Member
Chest infections
COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis: A cause for concern?
Since the global spread of SARS-CoV-2 more than a year ago, reports of secondary infections with Aspergillus spp. have emerged. Like influenza, there has been speculation that severe COVID-19 pneumonia is a unique risk factor for invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA). This entity has been dubbed CAPA, or COVID-associated pulmonary aspergillosis. While the reported incidence of CAPA has ranged from around 5% to 35% in critically ill patients, it has been difficult to distinguish reports of colonization from true infection as histopathologic evidence of disease has been limited. Using stringent diagnostic criteria, a retrospective review of 145 mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 found the incidence of CAPA to be 4.8% (Fekkar A, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021 Feb 1;203[3]:307-17) which is similar to other non-COVID ARDS series. The authors found solid organ transplant and prolonged steroid treatment to be risk factors. Like other studies, no comparator group was utilized, limiting the conclusions regarding COVID-19 as an independent risk factor for IPA. Diagnostic criteria have been adapted to assist clinicians and allow for future research: Proven infection requires temporal relation with COVID-19 ICU admission and histopathologic evidence of Aspergillus spp. invasion or positive culture from sterile sites (Koehler P, et al. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Dec 14;S1473-3099[20]30847-1).
Aspergillus conidia are ubiquitous in the environment, and the respiratory epithelium and associated cilia act as the first defense against IPA. Distinct from influenza pneumonia, severe COVID-19 causes diffuse alveolar damage and does not appear to cause significant damage to the respiratory epithelium (Borczuk AC, et al. Mod Pathol. 2020;33[11]:2156-68). This coupled with the lack of histopathologic evidence of invasion in most reports of CAPA raises question regarding the extent of the association between COVID-19 and IPA. Nonetheless, immune perturbation caused by COVID-19 immunomodulating therapies, such as corticosteroids and IL-6 inhibitors, may ultimately leave patients susceptible to IPA and other opportunistic infections.
Kelly M. Pennington, MD
Charles S. Dela Cruz, MD
Sebastion Kurz, MD
NetWork Steering Committee Members
Clinical pulmonary medicine
New USPSTF guidelines for lung cancer screening: A step forward
Despite lung cancer being the number one cause of cancer-related death in America, screening for lung cancer remains low, with only 2-16% eligible patients being offered screening since the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation in 2013. New guidelines published in JAMA (Krist AH, et al. JAMA. 2021;325[10]:962-970; Meza R, et al. JAMA. 2021;325[10]:988-97; Jonas DE, at al. JAMA. 2021;325[10]:971-87) have suggested broadening eligibility to those 50-80 years old, who are smokers or previously quit in the past 15 years and have a minimum 20 pack-year smoking history (Grade B recommendation). The change lowers the starting age to 50 and the smoking requirement from 30 to 20 pack-years. Based on Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) modeling, utilized by the UPSTF, this change can result in 503 (vs. 381 in the prior guideline) cancer deaths averted for every 100,000 adults and an estimated 13% reduction in lung cancer mortality and 6,918 life-years gained.
This recommendation will dramatically increase the number of eligible adults for screening by 6.4 million people, an increase of 86% compared with the 2013 guidelines. Most importantly, the decrease in pack-year requirement to 20 is expected to increase eligibility for women and minimize racial disparities. African American men have a higher incidence of lung cancer with less smoke exposure compared with white men. Non-Hispanic Black, Hispanics, American Indian/Alaska Native persons are hoped to have significant benefit from these new recommendations. Original recommendations in the 2013 guideline mirrored the National Lung Screening Trial, in which 91% participants were White. Regardless of these updated recommendations, serious socioeconomic barriers may continue to limit racial/ethnic minorities from accessing high-quality lung cancer screening programs. Besides changing the screening criteria, barriers to access will need to be addressed to achieve maximal benefits of the lung cancer screening program.
Munish Luthra, MD, FCCP
Samantha D’Annunzio, MD
Steering Committee Members
Interprofessional team
Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food – Hippocrates
Recently an article published in The Lancet discussed malnutrition in the patient with COVID-19 infection requiring non-invasive ventilation (NIV) (Turner P, et al. Lancet. 2021 Apr 3;397[10281]:126). It is known that COVID-19 infection causes hyperinflammation and hypercatabolism, resulting in disruption of metabolic pathways leading to muscle wasting, including cardiac muscle dysfunction, muscle weakness, and prolonged fatigue (Singer PJ, et al. 2021. Intensive Med. In press).
Lipids, specifically DHA and EPA, are known to inhibit cyclooxygenase enzyme and may suppress prostaglandin production and block platelet-activating factor. Consumption of carbohydrates with high glycemic indexes can result in free radical synthesis (increasing inflammatory cytokines C reactive protein, tumor necrosis alpha and interleukin-6). Other nutrients known to have an anti-inflammatory role include vitamins A & D, selenium, and copper. Vitamin A is known to enhance an antigen-specific immune response. Probiotics may also play a role in enhancing the immune response (Turner P, et al. 2021. Lancet. 2021 Apr 3;397[10281]:1261).
Patients requiring NIV encounter impaired tolerance to oral nutrition, and enteral nutrition (EN) is prescribed (Singer PJ, et al. 2021. Intensive Med. In press). Advantages of EN are maintenance of gut integrity and intestinal permeability as well as down regulation of the inflammatory response and insulin resistance. Furthermore, negative energy balance is associated with poor outcomes. Better focus on nutrition assessment practices is needed to overcome energy deficits during treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia. An interprofessional team approach increases use of nutritional scores and optimizes nutritional interventions.
If oral nutrition is feasible, prescribing small, frequent meals and high‐protein, calorically dense foods can ensure adequate caloric intake. (Behrens S, et al. Nutr Clin Pract. 2021 Feb;36[1]:105-9). When EN is indicated, the Intensive Care Society endorses the use of fine bore feeding tubes and NIV masks with special nasogastric tube adapters to reduce mask leak. Head-of-bed elevation and avoidance of bolus feeding improve EN tolerance (Pardo T, et al. 2021. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2020 Dec;39[6]:738-9).
*Due to the novelty of this disease information is limited and further study is warranted.
David W. Unkle, MSN, APN, FCCP
Robert Baeten, DMSc, PA-C, FCCP
Nikky Keer, DO
NetWork Steering Committee Members
Occupational and environmental health
Not just COVID in the air
Particulate matter (PM) is a specific type of air pollution referred to by its size in micrometers. A direct correlation has been shown between non-accidental death and PM2.5 concentration with a 1.5% increase in daily mortality (Schwartz J, et al. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 1996 Oct;46[10]:927-39). From 2000-2019, PM2.5 concentrations have steadily decreased over 43% (Environmental Protection Agency). Significant decline in air pollution has occurred early in the COVID-19 pandemic. PM2.5 declined in counties from states instituting early non-essential business closures in the U.S. Additionally, NASA models revealed a nearly 20% drop in global nitrogen dioxide concentrations using a COVID-19-free 2020 model to compare with actual space and ground-based observations since February 2020 (NASA Model Reveals How Much COVID-related Pollution Levels Deviated from the Norm. 2020 Nov 17. The pandemic has shown that there is a significant human behavior-driven contribution to air pollution. The historic fire season of 2020 in the western states contributed to record high air pollution with attributable mortality (Liu X, et al. medRxiv 2020.09.20197921). Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic impeded firefighting response (Burke M, et al. PNAS. 2021;11[2]:e2011048118).
Despite the pandemic related reduction, racial-ethnic disparities continue to exist in consumption of PM2.5. In a model looking at production of PM2.5, defined as consumption by the consumer and exposure as where the product or service originated, African American and Hispanic individuals have up to 12-21% greater pollution exposure within the United States (Tessum CW, et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2019 Mar 26;116[13]:6001-6). PM pollution increased the risk of asthma attacks corresponding to zip codes with higher poverty levels and eligibility to Medicaid (O’Lenick CR, et al. Epidemiol Community Health. 2017 Feb;71[2]:129-36). Other studies have shown people with a lower socioeconomic position, have less education, live nearer to major sources of pollution, greater reliance on public transportation and unemployment are at higher risk from effects of PM pollution (American Lung Association. Disparities in the impact of air pollution.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of Army/Navy/Air Force, Department of Defense, or US government.
Tyler Church, DO
Fellow-in-Training Member
Bathmapriya Balakrishnan, MD
Dixie Harris, MD
NetWork Steering Committee Members
Cardiovascular medicine and surgery
Evolution of ECMO as a result of COVID
A year and a half ago, the enormity of this pandemic was only beginning to be realized. Likewise, we have never before been so well-equipped to communicate, investigate, and collaborate through modern innovations. Despite our monumental progress with diagnostics and expedited vaccine production, there remain significant challenges with management of infected individuals suffering from severe sequelae after infection such as respiratory failure. Pharmacologic therapies with steroids, antivirals, and targeted immune modulators have demonstrated modest results at best thus far.
Early intubation unsurprisingly resulted in poor outcomes and a return to other established methods using high-flow nasal cannula and noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NIPPV) with a goal of avoiding mechanical ventilation are again the standard of care (Rola P, et al. Clin Exp Emerg Med. 2020 Jun 10. doi: 10.15441/ceem.20.043). Furthermore, limited resources encouraged utilization of established and probably previously underutilized techniques, such as proning with expected improvements in outcomes.
When conventional lung protective mechanical ventilation strategies have been unsuccessful, we have seen improved survival with the incorporation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), especially when cannulated earlier (Giraud R, et al. 2021. Phys Rep). Many centers now offer ECMO support with considerable expertise and trends toward earlier ECMO cannulation, which permit ultraprotective lung ventilation (Schmidt M, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019 Oct 15;200[8]:1002-12). With benefits that parallel early tracheostomy, early ECMO may permit decreased sedation and earlier mobilization, which contribute to improved outcomes (Levin NM, et al. J Clin Med. 2021 Jan 12;10[2]:25). We may be approaching a paradigm shift where ECMO is performed in lieu of mechanical ventilation (Kurihara C, et al. 2018. Crit Care Med. 2018 Nov;46[11]:e1070-e1073). Future randomized clinical trials will need to be designed to answer this question.
Robert Baeten, II, DSc, PA-C, FCCP
NetWork Steering Committee Member
Chest infections
COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis: A cause for concern?
Since the global spread of SARS-CoV-2 more than a year ago, reports of secondary infections with Aspergillus spp. have emerged. Like influenza, there has been speculation that severe COVID-19 pneumonia is a unique risk factor for invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA). This entity has been dubbed CAPA, or COVID-associated pulmonary aspergillosis. While the reported incidence of CAPA has ranged from around 5% to 35% in critically ill patients, it has been difficult to distinguish reports of colonization from true infection as histopathologic evidence of disease has been limited. Using stringent diagnostic criteria, a retrospective review of 145 mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 found the incidence of CAPA to be 4.8% (Fekkar A, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021 Feb 1;203[3]:307-17) which is similar to other non-COVID ARDS series. The authors found solid organ transplant and prolonged steroid treatment to be risk factors. Like other studies, no comparator group was utilized, limiting the conclusions regarding COVID-19 as an independent risk factor for IPA. Diagnostic criteria have been adapted to assist clinicians and allow for future research: Proven infection requires temporal relation with COVID-19 ICU admission and histopathologic evidence of Aspergillus spp. invasion or positive culture from sterile sites (Koehler P, et al. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Dec 14;S1473-3099[20]30847-1).
Aspergillus conidia are ubiquitous in the environment, and the respiratory epithelium and associated cilia act as the first defense against IPA. Distinct from influenza pneumonia, severe COVID-19 causes diffuse alveolar damage and does not appear to cause significant damage to the respiratory epithelium (Borczuk AC, et al. Mod Pathol. 2020;33[11]:2156-68). This coupled with the lack of histopathologic evidence of invasion in most reports of CAPA raises question regarding the extent of the association between COVID-19 and IPA. Nonetheless, immune perturbation caused by COVID-19 immunomodulating therapies, such as corticosteroids and IL-6 inhibitors, may ultimately leave patients susceptible to IPA and other opportunistic infections.
Kelly M. Pennington, MD
Charles S. Dela Cruz, MD
Sebastion Kurz, MD
NetWork Steering Committee Members
Clinical pulmonary medicine
New USPSTF guidelines for lung cancer screening: A step forward
Despite lung cancer being the number one cause of cancer-related death in America, screening for lung cancer remains low, with only 2-16% eligible patients being offered screening since the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation in 2013. New guidelines published in JAMA (Krist AH, et al. JAMA. 2021;325[10]:962-970; Meza R, et al. JAMA. 2021;325[10]:988-97; Jonas DE, at al. JAMA. 2021;325[10]:971-87) have suggested broadening eligibility to those 50-80 years old, who are smokers or previously quit in the past 15 years and have a minimum 20 pack-year smoking history (Grade B recommendation). The change lowers the starting age to 50 and the smoking requirement from 30 to 20 pack-years. Based on Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) modeling, utilized by the UPSTF, this change can result in 503 (vs. 381 in the prior guideline) cancer deaths averted for every 100,000 adults and an estimated 13% reduction in lung cancer mortality and 6,918 life-years gained.
This recommendation will dramatically increase the number of eligible adults for screening by 6.4 million people, an increase of 86% compared with the 2013 guidelines. Most importantly, the decrease in pack-year requirement to 20 is expected to increase eligibility for women and minimize racial disparities. African American men have a higher incidence of lung cancer with less smoke exposure compared with white men. Non-Hispanic Black, Hispanics, American Indian/Alaska Native persons are hoped to have significant benefit from these new recommendations. Original recommendations in the 2013 guideline mirrored the National Lung Screening Trial, in which 91% participants were White. Regardless of these updated recommendations, serious socioeconomic barriers may continue to limit racial/ethnic minorities from accessing high-quality lung cancer screening programs. Besides changing the screening criteria, barriers to access will need to be addressed to achieve maximal benefits of the lung cancer screening program.
Munish Luthra, MD, FCCP
Samantha D’Annunzio, MD
Steering Committee Members
Interprofessional team
Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food – Hippocrates
Recently an article published in The Lancet discussed malnutrition in the patient with COVID-19 infection requiring non-invasive ventilation (NIV) (Turner P, et al. Lancet. 2021 Apr 3;397[10281]:126). It is known that COVID-19 infection causes hyperinflammation and hypercatabolism, resulting in disruption of metabolic pathways leading to muscle wasting, including cardiac muscle dysfunction, muscle weakness, and prolonged fatigue (Singer PJ, et al. 2021. Intensive Med. In press).
Lipids, specifically DHA and EPA, are known to inhibit cyclooxygenase enzyme and may suppress prostaglandin production and block platelet-activating factor. Consumption of carbohydrates with high glycemic indexes can result in free radical synthesis (increasing inflammatory cytokines C reactive protein, tumor necrosis alpha and interleukin-6). Other nutrients known to have an anti-inflammatory role include vitamins A & D, selenium, and copper. Vitamin A is known to enhance an antigen-specific immune response. Probiotics may also play a role in enhancing the immune response (Turner P, et al. 2021. Lancet. 2021 Apr 3;397[10281]:1261).
Patients requiring NIV encounter impaired tolerance to oral nutrition, and enteral nutrition (EN) is prescribed (Singer PJ, et al. 2021. Intensive Med. In press). Advantages of EN are maintenance of gut integrity and intestinal permeability as well as down regulation of the inflammatory response and insulin resistance. Furthermore, negative energy balance is associated with poor outcomes. Better focus on nutrition assessment practices is needed to overcome energy deficits during treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia. An interprofessional team approach increases use of nutritional scores and optimizes nutritional interventions.
If oral nutrition is feasible, prescribing small, frequent meals and high‐protein, calorically dense foods can ensure adequate caloric intake. (Behrens S, et al. Nutr Clin Pract. 2021 Feb;36[1]:105-9). When EN is indicated, the Intensive Care Society endorses the use of fine bore feeding tubes and NIV masks with special nasogastric tube adapters to reduce mask leak. Head-of-bed elevation and avoidance of bolus feeding improve EN tolerance (Pardo T, et al. 2021. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2020 Dec;39[6]:738-9).
*Due to the novelty of this disease information is limited and further study is warranted.
David W. Unkle, MSN, APN, FCCP
Robert Baeten, DMSc, PA-C, FCCP
Nikky Keer, DO
NetWork Steering Committee Members
Occupational and environmental health
Not just COVID in the air
Particulate matter (PM) is a specific type of air pollution referred to by its size in micrometers. A direct correlation has been shown between non-accidental death and PM2.5 concentration with a 1.5% increase in daily mortality (Schwartz J, et al. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 1996 Oct;46[10]:927-39). From 2000-2019, PM2.5 concentrations have steadily decreased over 43% (Environmental Protection Agency). Significant decline in air pollution has occurred early in the COVID-19 pandemic. PM2.5 declined in counties from states instituting early non-essential business closures in the U.S. Additionally, NASA models revealed a nearly 20% drop in global nitrogen dioxide concentrations using a COVID-19-free 2020 model to compare with actual space and ground-based observations since February 2020 (NASA Model Reveals How Much COVID-related Pollution Levels Deviated from the Norm. 2020 Nov 17. The pandemic has shown that there is a significant human behavior-driven contribution to air pollution. The historic fire season of 2020 in the western states contributed to record high air pollution with attributable mortality (Liu X, et al. medRxiv 2020.09.20197921). Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic impeded firefighting response (Burke M, et al. PNAS. 2021;11[2]:e2011048118).
Despite the pandemic related reduction, racial-ethnic disparities continue to exist in consumption of PM2.5. In a model looking at production of PM2.5, defined as consumption by the consumer and exposure as where the product or service originated, African American and Hispanic individuals have up to 12-21% greater pollution exposure within the United States (Tessum CW, et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2019 Mar 26;116[13]:6001-6). PM pollution increased the risk of asthma attacks corresponding to zip codes with higher poverty levels and eligibility to Medicaid (O’Lenick CR, et al. Epidemiol Community Health. 2017 Feb;71[2]:129-36). Other studies have shown people with a lower socioeconomic position, have less education, live nearer to major sources of pollution, greater reliance on public transportation and unemployment are at higher risk from effects of PM pollution (American Lung Association. Disparities in the impact of air pollution.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of Army/Navy/Air Force, Department of Defense, or US government.
Tyler Church, DO
Fellow-in-Training Member
Bathmapriya Balakrishnan, MD
Dixie Harris, MD
NetWork Steering Committee Members
Are we there yet? Lung cancer screening – current landscape
Lung cancer is the second-most common cancer and one of the leading causes of mortality in the United States among both men and women. It accounts for almost 25% of all cancer deaths, and every year more people die of lung cancer than colon, breast, and prostate cancers combined. The American Cancer Society estimates about 235,760 new lung cancer cases and about 131,880 deaths from lung cancer in 2021.
Smoking and increasing age are the two most important risk factors for lung cancer. Lung cancer has a higher incidence among Black men than White men, and among White women compared with Black women. These differences are likely related to smoking exposure. Early diagnosis of lung cancer can improve survival, and hence screening for lung cancer in high-risk populations is desired. Among the available cancer screening tests, radiology is primarily involved in breast and lung cancer screening (LCS). In 2011, the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) showed a benefit of annual low- dose chest CT for LCS, with about 20% reduction in lung cancer-related mortality in high-risk participants compared with chest radiographs (Aberle DR, et al. N Engl J Med. 2011 Aug 4;365[5]:395-409).
In 2013, the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued a grade B recommendation in support of annual LCS by CT scan for individuals between the ages of 55-80 years with smoking history of 30 or more pack-years who are current smokers or had quit smoking in the last 15 years. Many other professional societies followed with their own recommendations with minor differences. In 2015, after the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) decision of coverage, millions of Americans at high risk became eligible for CT LCS with no copayment or cost sharing by the patient.
The results from the European NELSON trial in 2020 augmented the NLST data showing a 24% decrease in lung cancer mortality. Nodules were measured using volume and volume doubling time rather than bidimensional axial measurements, reducing the false-positive results to 56% compared with 96% in NLST. With growing evidence of the benefits from LCS, recently USPSTF summarized with moderate certainty that annual LCS CT has moderate net benefit in people at high risk for lung cancer based on age, cumulative smoking exposure, and years since quitting smoking.
In March 2021, USPSTF has issued new recommendations with a decrease in the screening age to 50 years, and the smoking history that triggers screening to 20 pack-years (Screening for Lung Cancer: USPSTF Statement. JAMA. 2021 Mar 9;325[10]:962-70. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.1117). These expanded eligibility criteria are projected to double the number of eligible candidates of LCS in the United States, reduce annual deaths by up to 50%, and benefit minorities and women. By widening the screening criteria to include younger individuals and who have smoked less tobacco, more lives will be saved by early detection of lung cancer. Since the NLST and NELSON trials enrolled relatively healthy people, USPSTF recommends discontinuation of screening once the person has not smoked for 15 years and in persons with any health problem that severely limits the life expectancy or the ability or willingness to undergo surgery. All screening programs must incorporate smoking cessation counseling and interventions for all the enrolled individuals who are current smokers. The USPSTF has also made recommendations on interventions to prevent the initiation of tobacco use in children and adolescents, including counseling and pharmacotherapy.
The decision to undergo LCS is inherently complex, and primary care and pulmonary physicians play a pivotal role by identifying the eligible patients, participating in shared decision-making (SDM), offering smoking cessation, ordering the CT, and managing follow-up. SDM between the patient and clinician includes a discussion of the benefits, risks, limitations, and potential harms of screening. The potential harms of screening include overdiagnosis, false-positive results, incidental findings, and the anxiety leading to further testing or follow-up. The risk of radiation exposure is markedly reduced using low-dose CT protocols compared with conventional chest CT. SDM visit also emphasizes the importance of adherence to annual screening and patient willingness and ability to undergo treatment if required. In 2015, CMS approved the addition of LCS counseling and SDM visits that are performed by physicians or qualified nonphysician practitioners (physician assistant, nurse practitioner, or clinical nurse specialist). Studies have shown that these visits improve the screening uptake rate.
To minimize the variations in the evaluation and management of screen-detected lung nodules, the American College of Radiology (ACR) developed the Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) to be used in LCS CT reports. The latest revised version 1.1 of Lung-RADS was released in 2019. The Lung-RADS defines a positive screen and provides accepted nodule care pathways depending on their size, characteristics, and additional findings, and has been shown to decrease the rate of false-positive results in LCS. To be a designated LCS center, the department of radiology must comply with stringent requirements of technical and facility specification, with radiologist qualification, and with reporting and communication as outlined by the ACR. In addition, participation in the National LCS Registry to meet CMS quality reporting requirements is mandatory for facilities to be reimbursed by CMS.
After more than 10 years since its inception, the participation in LCS has been low. Out of 8 million eligible Americans, less than 4% have been screened (American Cancer Society, NSCLC statistics 2020) compared with breast cancer (up to 75%) (Breast Cancer: Facts and Figures 2019-2020). Adherence to annual LCS between 1-3 years in the US is only about 55%. Non-White patients, current smokers, those aged 65-73 years, and those who lack a college education are most likely to be less adherent to follow-up screening. There are hurdles at multiple levels including but not limited to patient and physician awareness, patient enrollment, adherence, follow-up, and insurance coverage. Expanding the reach of LCS in socially and economically disadvantaged, racial and ethnic minorities, and women has been even more challenging.
Significant differences exist in opinions and practices between primary care physicians (PCPs) and pulmonologists regarding referral for LCS and its benefits. Educational intervention at the PCP level aimed at awareness of USPSTF guidelines may improve utilization and adherence to screening. Increasing lung cancer awareness by community outreach programs, promoting related discussions, and providing information about available screening services to eligible population is crucial to derive the maximum benefits of LCS. Presenting decision aid tools on smartphones and online has shown to improve the participants’ knowledge of LCS, to reduce the decisional conflict, and to be acceptable among patients and providers. Implementation strategies such as involving a nonphysician provider, keeping the training on these tools brief and simple, and providing it to participants prior to the clinical encounter might be effective. Electronic medical record systems can be optimized to simplify the ordering procedure to ensure the eligibility criteria are met, to provide results to the physicians, and to direct further management of positive screen results. Most LCS programs have a nonphysician program coordinator to convey the results to the patients and physician, to send out reminders for scheduled follow up appointment, and to maintain the registry data.
In the future, newer imaging technology, and molecular biomarkers or other technologies to differentiate lung cancer more accurately from a benign nodule, and to determine its aggressiveness, will supplement the LCS to decrease false positive results. Better risk prediction models will influence screening eligibility and prognostication in a screen-detected cancer. Robust data collection from ongoing clinical programs will determine if the benefits of LCS seen in clinical trials are comparable when applied to diverse community settings.
Dr. Stowell and Dr. Sonavane are with the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.
Lung cancer is the second-most common cancer and one of the leading causes of mortality in the United States among both men and women. It accounts for almost 25% of all cancer deaths, and every year more people die of lung cancer than colon, breast, and prostate cancers combined. The American Cancer Society estimates about 235,760 new lung cancer cases and about 131,880 deaths from lung cancer in 2021.
Smoking and increasing age are the two most important risk factors for lung cancer. Lung cancer has a higher incidence among Black men than White men, and among White women compared with Black women. These differences are likely related to smoking exposure. Early diagnosis of lung cancer can improve survival, and hence screening for lung cancer in high-risk populations is desired. Among the available cancer screening tests, radiology is primarily involved in breast and lung cancer screening (LCS). In 2011, the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) showed a benefit of annual low- dose chest CT for LCS, with about 20% reduction in lung cancer-related mortality in high-risk participants compared with chest radiographs (Aberle DR, et al. N Engl J Med. 2011 Aug 4;365[5]:395-409).
In 2013, the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued a grade B recommendation in support of annual LCS by CT scan for individuals between the ages of 55-80 years with smoking history of 30 or more pack-years who are current smokers or had quit smoking in the last 15 years. Many other professional societies followed with their own recommendations with minor differences. In 2015, after the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) decision of coverage, millions of Americans at high risk became eligible for CT LCS with no copayment or cost sharing by the patient.
The results from the European NELSON trial in 2020 augmented the NLST data showing a 24% decrease in lung cancer mortality. Nodules were measured using volume and volume doubling time rather than bidimensional axial measurements, reducing the false-positive results to 56% compared with 96% in NLST. With growing evidence of the benefits from LCS, recently USPSTF summarized with moderate certainty that annual LCS CT has moderate net benefit in people at high risk for lung cancer based on age, cumulative smoking exposure, and years since quitting smoking.
In March 2021, USPSTF has issued new recommendations with a decrease in the screening age to 50 years, and the smoking history that triggers screening to 20 pack-years (Screening for Lung Cancer: USPSTF Statement. JAMA. 2021 Mar 9;325[10]:962-70. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.1117). These expanded eligibility criteria are projected to double the number of eligible candidates of LCS in the United States, reduce annual deaths by up to 50%, and benefit minorities and women. By widening the screening criteria to include younger individuals and who have smoked less tobacco, more lives will be saved by early detection of lung cancer. Since the NLST and NELSON trials enrolled relatively healthy people, USPSTF recommends discontinuation of screening once the person has not smoked for 15 years and in persons with any health problem that severely limits the life expectancy or the ability or willingness to undergo surgery. All screening programs must incorporate smoking cessation counseling and interventions for all the enrolled individuals who are current smokers. The USPSTF has also made recommendations on interventions to prevent the initiation of tobacco use in children and adolescents, including counseling and pharmacotherapy.
The decision to undergo LCS is inherently complex, and primary care and pulmonary physicians play a pivotal role by identifying the eligible patients, participating in shared decision-making (SDM), offering smoking cessation, ordering the CT, and managing follow-up. SDM between the patient and clinician includes a discussion of the benefits, risks, limitations, and potential harms of screening. The potential harms of screening include overdiagnosis, false-positive results, incidental findings, and the anxiety leading to further testing or follow-up. The risk of radiation exposure is markedly reduced using low-dose CT protocols compared with conventional chest CT. SDM visit also emphasizes the importance of adherence to annual screening and patient willingness and ability to undergo treatment if required. In 2015, CMS approved the addition of LCS counseling and SDM visits that are performed by physicians or qualified nonphysician practitioners (physician assistant, nurse practitioner, or clinical nurse specialist). Studies have shown that these visits improve the screening uptake rate.
To minimize the variations in the evaluation and management of screen-detected lung nodules, the American College of Radiology (ACR) developed the Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) to be used in LCS CT reports. The latest revised version 1.1 of Lung-RADS was released in 2019. The Lung-RADS defines a positive screen and provides accepted nodule care pathways depending on their size, characteristics, and additional findings, and has been shown to decrease the rate of false-positive results in LCS. To be a designated LCS center, the department of radiology must comply with stringent requirements of technical and facility specification, with radiologist qualification, and with reporting and communication as outlined by the ACR. In addition, participation in the National LCS Registry to meet CMS quality reporting requirements is mandatory for facilities to be reimbursed by CMS.
After more than 10 years since its inception, the participation in LCS has been low. Out of 8 million eligible Americans, less than 4% have been screened (American Cancer Society, NSCLC statistics 2020) compared with breast cancer (up to 75%) (Breast Cancer: Facts and Figures 2019-2020). Adherence to annual LCS between 1-3 years in the US is only about 55%. Non-White patients, current smokers, those aged 65-73 years, and those who lack a college education are most likely to be less adherent to follow-up screening. There are hurdles at multiple levels including but not limited to patient and physician awareness, patient enrollment, adherence, follow-up, and insurance coverage. Expanding the reach of LCS in socially and economically disadvantaged, racial and ethnic minorities, and women has been even more challenging.
Significant differences exist in opinions and practices between primary care physicians (PCPs) and pulmonologists regarding referral for LCS and its benefits. Educational intervention at the PCP level aimed at awareness of USPSTF guidelines may improve utilization and adherence to screening. Increasing lung cancer awareness by community outreach programs, promoting related discussions, and providing information about available screening services to eligible population is crucial to derive the maximum benefits of LCS. Presenting decision aid tools on smartphones and online has shown to improve the participants’ knowledge of LCS, to reduce the decisional conflict, and to be acceptable among patients and providers. Implementation strategies such as involving a nonphysician provider, keeping the training on these tools brief and simple, and providing it to participants prior to the clinical encounter might be effective. Electronic medical record systems can be optimized to simplify the ordering procedure to ensure the eligibility criteria are met, to provide results to the physicians, and to direct further management of positive screen results. Most LCS programs have a nonphysician program coordinator to convey the results to the patients and physician, to send out reminders for scheduled follow up appointment, and to maintain the registry data.
In the future, newer imaging technology, and molecular biomarkers or other technologies to differentiate lung cancer more accurately from a benign nodule, and to determine its aggressiveness, will supplement the LCS to decrease false positive results. Better risk prediction models will influence screening eligibility and prognostication in a screen-detected cancer. Robust data collection from ongoing clinical programs will determine if the benefits of LCS seen in clinical trials are comparable when applied to diverse community settings.
Dr. Stowell and Dr. Sonavane are with the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.
Lung cancer is the second-most common cancer and one of the leading causes of mortality in the United States among both men and women. It accounts for almost 25% of all cancer deaths, and every year more people die of lung cancer than colon, breast, and prostate cancers combined. The American Cancer Society estimates about 235,760 new lung cancer cases and about 131,880 deaths from lung cancer in 2021.
Smoking and increasing age are the two most important risk factors for lung cancer. Lung cancer has a higher incidence among Black men than White men, and among White women compared with Black women. These differences are likely related to smoking exposure. Early diagnosis of lung cancer can improve survival, and hence screening for lung cancer in high-risk populations is desired. Among the available cancer screening tests, radiology is primarily involved in breast and lung cancer screening (LCS). In 2011, the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) showed a benefit of annual low- dose chest CT for LCS, with about 20% reduction in lung cancer-related mortality in high-risk participants compared with chest radiographs (Aberle DR, et al. N Engl J Med. 2011 Aug 4;365[5]:395-409).
In 2013, the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued a grade B recommendation in support of annual LCS by CT scan for individuals between the ages of 55-80 years with smoking history of 30 or more pack-years who are current smokers or had quit smoking in the last 15 years. Many other professional societies followed with their own recommendations with minor differences. In 2015, after the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) decision of coverage, millions of Americans at high risk became eligible for CT LCS with no copayment or cost sharing by the patient.
The results from the European NELSON trial in 2020 augmented the NLST data showing a 24% decrease in lung cancer mortality. Nodules were measured using volume and volume doubling time rather than bidimensional axial measurements, reducing the false-positive results to 56% compared with 96% in NLST. With growing evidence of the benefits from LCS, recently USPSTF summarized with moderate certainty that annual LCS CT has moderate net benefit in people at high risk for lung cancer based on age, cumulative smoking exposure, and years since quitting smoking.
In March 2021, USPSTF has issued new recommendations with a decrease in the screening age to 50 years, and the smoking history that triggers screening to 20 pack-years (Screening for Lung Cancer: USPSTF Statement. JAMA. 2021 Mar 9;325[10]:962-70. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.1117). These expanded eligibility criteria are projected to double the number of eligible candidates of LCS in the United States, reduce annual deaths by up to 50%, and benefit minorities and women. By widening the screening criteria to include younger individuals and who have smoked less tobacco, more lives will be saved by early detection of lung cancer. Since the NLST and NELSON trials enrolled relatively healthy people, USPSTF recommends discontinuation of screening once the person has not smoked for 15 years and in persons with any health problem that severely limits the life expectancy or the ability or willingness to undergo surgery. All screening programs must incorporate smoking cessation counseling and interventions for all the enrolled individuals who are current smokers. The USPSTF has also made recommendations on interventions to prevent the initiation of tobacco use in children and adolescents, including counseling and pharmacotherapy.
The decision to undergo LCS is inherently complex, and primary care and pulmonary physicians play a pivotal role by identifying the eligible patients, participating in shared decision-making (SDM), offering smoking cessation, ordering the CT, and managing follow-up. SDM between the patient and clinician includes a discussion of the benefits, risks, limitations, and potential harms of screening. The potential harms of screening include overdiagnosis, false-positive results, incidental findings, and the anxiety leading to further testing or follow-up. The risk of radiation exposure is markedly reduced using low-dose CT protocols compared with conventional chest CT. SDM visit also emphasizes the importance of adherence to annual screening and patient willingness and ability to undergo treatment if required. In 2015, CMS approved the addition of LCS counseling and SDM visits that are performed by physicians or qualified nonphysician practitioners (physician assistant, nurse practitioner, or clinical nurse specialist). Studies have shown that these visits improve the screening uptake rate.
To minimize the variations in the evaluation and management of screen-detected lung nodules, the American College of Radiology (ACR) developed the Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) to be used in LCS CT reports. The latest revised version 1.1 of Lung-RADS was released in 2019. The Lung-RADS defines a positive screen and provides accepted nodule care pathways depending on their size, characteristics, and additional findings, and has been shown to decrease the rate of false-positive results in LCS. To be a designated LCS center, the department of radiology must comply with stringent requirements of technical and facility specification, with radiologist qualification, and with reporting and communication as outlined by the ACR. In addition, participation in the National LCS Registry to meet CMS quality reporting requirements is mandatory for facilities to be reimbursed by CMS.
After more than 10 years since its inception, the participation in LCS has been low. Out of 8 million eligible Americans, less than 4% have been screened (American Cancer Society, NSCLC statistics 2020) compared with breast cancer (up to 75%) (Breast Cancer: Facts and Figures 2019-2020). Adherence to annual LCS between 1-3 years in the US is only about 55%. Non-White patients, current smokers, those aged 65-73 years, and those who lack a college education are most likely to be less adherent to follow-up screening. There are hurdles at multiple levels including but not limited to patient and physician awareness, patient enrollment, adherence, follow-up, and insurance coverage. Expanding the reach of LCS in socially and economically disadvantaged, racial and ethnic minorities, and women has been even more challenging.
Significant differences exist in opinions and practices between primary care physicians (PCPs) and pulmonologists regarding referral for LCS and its benefits. Educational intervention at the PCP level aimed at awareness of USPSTF guidelines may improve utilization and adherence to screening. Increasing lung cancer awareness by community outreach programs, promoting related discussions, and providing information about available screening services to eligible population is crucial to derive the maximum benefits of LCS. Presenting decision aid tools on smartphones and online has shown to improve the participants’ knowledge of LCS, to reduce the decisional conflict, and to be acceptable among patients and providers. Implementation strategies such as involving a nonphysician provider, keeping the training on these tools brief and simple, and providing it to participants prior to the clinical encounter might be effective. Electronic medical record systems can be optimized to simplify the ordering procedure to ensure the eligibility criteria are met, to provide results to the physicians, and to direct further management of positive screen results. Most LCS programs have a nonphysician program coordinator to convey the results to the patients and physician, to send out reminders for scheduled follow up appointment, and to maintain the registry data.
In the future, newer imaging technology, and molecular biomarkers or other technologies to differentiate lung cancer more accurately from a benign nodule, and to determine its aggressiveness, will supplement the LCS to decrease false positive results. Better risk prediction models will influence screening eligibility and prognostication in a screen-detected cancer. Robust data collection from ongoing clinical programs will determine if the benefits of LCS seen in clinical trials are comparable when applied to diverse community settings.
Dr. Stowell and Dr. Sonavane are with the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.
CHEST 2021 safety efforts – everyone has a role
Over the past year, you’ve had to adapt to Zoom calls and socially distanced learning. It’s time to come back together, face-to-face, for our top-tier learning event in sunny Orlando, Florida.
Grab your sunscreen and book your flights – we’re ready to welcome you back to CHEST 2021 with team-focused learning sessions, immersive gaming opportunities, expert-led faculty presentations, and more. We are making the meeting as safe as possible so you can attend in person.
After careful planning, we are excited to be able at the Orange County Convention Center (OCCC) for CHEST 2021. Health and safety are our biggest concerns for the meeting, which is why we chose this location. The convention center features the extra square footage we needed to design a meeting space with ample room for social distancing.
We are committed to create a meeting experience where you can safely and effectively conduct business, network with colleagues, and experience high-quality education. With your feedback, we have implemented COVID-19 safety measures similar to what is used in your hospitals and facilities. To ensure your health and safety, there will be a few requirements asked of in-person attendees.
Preparing for CHEST 2021
As the pandemic continues and vaccines are more readily available, we are requiring all attendees – participants, vendors, and staff – to be vaccinated to attend in person in Orlando, Florida. Your second vaccination shot should take place at least 2 weeks prior to the conference start. When you complete your registration information, you will be asked to attest that you have or will have completed an FDA-approved vaccination for COVID-19 by October 17, 2021.
We also suggest scheduling extra time at your arrival to the conference site. Realize that registration, lunch lines, hotel check-in, etc, may take longer as we navigate a new way to meet in person. This year, registration will be contactless. Have your digital or print confirmation ready when you arrive – the more prepared you are, the faster registration will be.
While the venue will regularly sanitize all high touch points in the public space throughout the day, remember to pack any personal supplies you may need for individual use, especially masks. Attendees will be required to wear a mask covering the mouth and nose at all times during the meeting. There will be masks on-site in case you forget or misplace your own.
Before making your way to Orlando, complete one last health self-assessment. Are you symptom free? Consider what advice you would give your patient if they felt the way you do in that moment. When in doubt, stay home and join us online. That’s one of the benefits of CHEST 2021.
Keeping safe while experiencing CHEST 2021
Any time you are in the conference center and the Hilton Hotel, the no-contact policy is applicable. Greet your colleagues and new friends using elbow bumps, waves, and any other form of contactless gestures. We will save our handshakes and hugs for CHEST 2022!
By attending in person, you are also agreeing to perform a health status self-check every day for any onset of COVID symptoms as defined by the CDC. If you are feeling ill, immediately notify the first aid office at the meeting.
Help us deliver a high-quality experience with the lowest reasonable risk in a manner that protects us all by complying to these health and safety measures. In addition, the layout and schedule of the conference is being designed to allow time for cleaning spaces between sessions. This means more time to get to your next location, visit the exhibit hall, or spend with your colleagues.
Our commitment to your safety
CHEST is taking extra precautions to keep you safe too – it’s not just on you! Daily temperature screenings will be conducted upon entry to the convention center and Hilton Orlando for everyone.
During the meeting, floor graphics will be used to outline 6-ft social distancing. In the concession areas, seating will be properly distanced and transparent shields will be in place. The exhibit hall will have extra wide aisles, which are not only safe, but easier to move through.
Public space and public restrooms are monitored by OCCC Environmental Services. They conduct sanitizing tasks within the restroom banks throughout the day and a thorough cleaning overnight. They also regularly sanitize all high touch points in the public space throughout the day as well; ie, door handles, ATMs, escalator handrails, elevator buttons, etc.
Staff and security have been increased to provide the best customer service and information accessibility to all in-person attendees. Medical personnel will also be present on site and available to help individuals who are feeling unwell.
It’s been a long year apart from our CHEST community. We can’t wait to see you in Orlando, Florida, October 17-20, for the high-quality education you expect.
Over the past year, you’ve had to adapt to Zoom calls and socially distanced learning. It’s time to come back together, face-to-face, for our top-tier learning event in sunny Orlando, Florida.
Grab your sunscreen and book your flights – we’re ready to welcome you back to CHEST 2021 with team-focused learning sessions, immersive gaming opportunities, expert-led faculty presentations, and more. We are making the meeting as safe as possible so you can attend in person.
After careful planning, we are excited to be able at the Orange County Convention Center (OCCC) for CHEST 2021. Health and safety are our biggest concerns for the meeting, which is why we chose this location. The convention center features the extra square footage we needed to design a meeting space with ample room for social distancing.
We are committed to create a meeting experience where you can safely and effectively conduct business, network with colleagues, and experience high-quality education. With your feedback, we have implemented COVID-19 safety measures similar to what is used in your hospitals and facilities. To ensure your health and safety, there will be a few requirements asked of in-person attendees.
Preparing for CHEST 2021
As the pandemic continues and vaccines are more readily available, we are requiring all attendees – participants, vendors, and staff – to be vaccinated to attend in person in Orlando, Florida. Your second vaccination shot should take place at least 2 weeks prior to the conference start. When you complete your registration information, you will be asked to attest that you have or will have completed an FDA-approved vaccination for COVID-19 by October 17, 2021.
We also suggest scheduling extra time at your arrival to the conference site. Realize that registration, lunch lines, hotel check-in, etc, may take longer as we navigate a new way to meet in person. This year, registration will be contactless. Have your digital or print confirmation ready when you arrive – the more prepared you are, the faster registration will be.
While the venue will regularly sanitize all high touch points in the public space throughout the day, remember to pack any personal supplies you may need for individual use, especially masks. Attendees will be required to wear a mask covering the mouth and nose at all times during the meeting. There will be masks on-site in case you forget or misplace your own.
Before making your way to Orlando, complete one last health self-assessment. Are you symptom free? Consider what advice you would give your patient if they felt the way you do in that moment. When in doubt, stay home and join us online. That’s one of the benefits of CHEST 2021.
Keeping safe while experiencing CHEST 2021
Any time you are in the conference center and the Hilton Hotel, the no-contact policy is applicable. Greet your colleagues and new friends using elbow bumps, waves, and any other form of contactless gestures. We will save our handshakes and hugs for CHEST 2022!
By attending in person, you are also agreeing to perform a health status self-check every day for any onset of COVID symptoms as defined by the CDC. If you are feeling ill, immediately notify the first aid office at the meeting.
Help us deliver a high-quality experience with the lowest reasonable risk in a manner that protects us all by complying to these health and safety measures. In addition, the layout and schedule of the conference is being designed to allow time for cleaning spaces between sessions. This means more time to get to your next location, visit the exhibit hall, or spend with your colleagues.
Our commitment to your safety
CHEST is taking extra precautions to keep you safe too – it’s not just on you! Daily temperature screenings will be conducted upon entry to the convention center and Hilton Orlando for everyone.
During the meeting, floor graphics will be used to outline 6-ft social distancing. In the concession areas, seating will be properly distanced and transparent shields will be in place. The exhibit hall will have extra wide aisles, which are not only safe, but easier to move through.
Public space and public restrooms are monitored by OCCC Environmental Services. They conduct sanitizing tasks within the restroom banks throughout the day and a thorough cleaning overnight. They also regularly sanitize all high touch points in the public space throughout the day as well; ie, door handles, ATMs, escalator handrails, elevator buttons, etc.
Staff and security have been increased to provide the best customer service and information accessibility to all in-person attendees. Medical personnel will also be present on site and available to help individuals who are feeling unwell.
It’s been a long year apart from our CHEST community. We can’t wait to see you in Orlando, Florida, October 17-20, for the high-quality education you expect.
Over the past year, you’ve had to adapt to Zoom calls and socially distanced learning. It’s time to come back together, face-to-face, for our top-tier learning event in sunny Orlando, Florida.
Grab your sunscreen and book your flights – we’re ready to welcome you back to CHEST 2021 with team-focused learning sessions, immersive gaming opportunities, expert-led faculty presentations, and more. We are making the meeting as safe as possible so you can attend in person.
After careful planning, we are excited to be able at the Orange County Convention Center (OCCC) for CHEST 2021. Health and safety are our biggest concerns for the meeting, which is why we chose this location. The convention center features the extra square footage we needed to design a meeting space with ample room for social distancing.
We are committed to create a meeting experience where you can safely and effectively conduct business, network with colleagues, and experience high-quality education. With your feedback, we have implemented COVID-19 safety measures similar to what is used in your hospitals and facilities. To ensure your health and safety, there will be a few requirements asked of in-person attendees.
Preparing for CHEST 2021
As the pandemic continues and vaccines are more readily available, we are requiring all attendees – participants, vendors, and staff – to be vaccinated to attend in person in Orlando, Florida. Your second vaccination shot should take place at least 2 weeks prior to the conference start. When you complete your registration information, you will be asked to attest that you have or will have completed an FDA-approved vaccination for COVID-19 by October 17, 2021.
We also suggest scheduling extra time at your arrival to the conference site. Realize that registration, lunch lines, hotel check-in, etc, may take longer as we navigate a new way to meet in person. This year, registration will be contactless. Have your digital or print confirmation ready when you arrive – the more prepared you are, the faster registration will be.
While the venue will regularly sanitize all high touch points in the public space throughout the day, remember to pack any personal supplies you may need for individual use, especially masks. Attendees will be required to wear a mask covering the mouth and nose at all times during the meeting. There will be masks on-site in case you forget or misplace your own.
Before making your way to Orlando, complete one last health self-assessment. Are you symptom free? Consider what advice you would give your patient if they felt the way you do in that moment. When in doubt, stay home and join us online. That’s one of the benefits of CHEST 2021.
Keeping safe while experiencing CHEST 2021
Any time you are in the conference center and the Hilton Hotel, the no-contact policy is applicable. Greet your colleagues and new friends using elbow bumps, waves, and any other form of contactless gestures. We will save our handshakes and hugs for CHEST 2022!
By attending in person, you are also agreeing to perform a health status self-check every day for any onset of COVID symptoms as defined by the CDC. If you are feeling ill, immediately notify the first aid office at the meeting.
Help us deliver a high-quality experience with the lowest reasonable risk in a manner that protects us all by complying to these health and safety measures. In addition, the layout and schedule of the conference is being designed to allow time for cleaning spaces between sessions. This means more time to get to your next location, visit the exhibit hall, or spend with your colleagues.
Our commitment to your safety
CHEST is taking extra precautions to keep you safe too – it’s not just on you! Daily temperature screenings will be conducted upon entry to the convention center and Hilton Orlando for everyone.
During the meeting, floor graphics will be used to outline 6-ft social distancing. In the concession areas, seating will be properly distanced and transparent shields will be in place. The exhibit hall will have extra wide aisles, which are not only safe, but easier to move through.
Public space and public restrooms are monitored by OCCC Environmental Services. They conduct sanitizing tasks within the restroom banks throughout the day and a thorough cleaning overnight. They also regularly sanitize all high touch points in the public space throughout the day as well; ie, door handles, ATMs, escalator handrails, elevator buttons, etc.
Staff and security have been increased to provide the best customer service and information accessibility to all in-person attendees. Medical personnel will also be present on site and available to help individuals who are feeling unwell.
It’s been a long year apart from our CHEST community. We can’t wait to see you in Orlando, Florida, October 17-20, for the high-quality education you expect.
CHEST Health Policy and Advocacy Committee perspective on the FDA’s announcement of prohibiting menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars
The recently announced ruling by the FDA to ban menthol in tobacco products is a large step forward toward abolishing tobacco-related disease and death. It is also a big step forward to abolishing the institutional racism of the tobacco industry, which has targeted Black communities with menthol cigarettes for decades, and a step toward improving health equity. Although tobacco use across the United States has decreased from 45% of adults smoking in the 1950s to only 14% smoking today, tobacco continues to be the leading cause of preventable disease and death. Critically, some populations have not seen reductions in tobacco use that benefited others, namely communities of color, low-income populations and LGBTQ+ individuals. A key to this health disparity is the preference for menthol-flavored tobacco products by these groups. Menthol within cigarettes and cigars masks the unpleasant smell of tobacco and numbs the airways to irritation caused by tobacco smoke, while amplifying the effects of nicotine. Eighteen million people smoke menthol cigarettes, with 85% of Black smokers using menthol cigarettes – tobacco ends 45,000 Black lives every year, and menthol is the primary driver of over 38,000 of these Black deaths.
The data supporting a menthol ban has been strong for years. It is well known that flavors, like menthol, increase the appeal of tobacco and increase initiation of tobacco use by women, children, young adults, people of color, low-income, and LGBTQ+ communities. Menthol in particular increases the addictive potential of tobacco and makes it harder for menthol smokers to quit. The evidence behind banning menthol across tobacco products and flavored cigars to protect our children and young adults is also strong. Half of adolescents who try tobacco choose menthol-flavored products; 74% of teenagers aged 14-17 who smoke cigars say they do so because they enjoy the flavors.
There are many reasons why we as pulmonary and critical care medicine physicians are excited about this recent FDA ruling. The most important of which is that this rule is an important step toward advancing health equity in our country. Banning menthol-flavored tobacco products will save lives, including those of thousands of Black Americans. Banning menthol will reduce tobacco addiction, diminish youth experimentation and youth initiation of tobacco use, and increase the ability of tobacco smokers to successfully quit.
While celebrating this incredible win against the racist institution that is Big Tobacco, we must acknowledge the hard work of those who made it happen: the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council, Center for Black Health & Equity, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, American Medical Association, and many others. It is extremely exciting that menthol cigarettes, which are responsible for 10,000 deaths per year and >265,000 new smokers per year since 1980 (Le TT and Mendez D, Tob Control. 2021 Feb 25. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-056256).
will soon be a thing of the past. Next on the CHEST Health Policy and Advocacy Committee (HPAC) to-do list? Ensuring that the menthol ban is extended to e-cigarettes, another tobacco product that targets Americans of all kinds. Finally, we must continue the fight to end tobacco-related disease and death across the country and across the world by helping our patients with smoking cessation efforts and by working to prevent initiation of tobacco use (including e-cigarettes and other vaping devices) by children, at-risk individuals, and communities of all kinds.
Laura E. Crotty Alexander, MD, is with UC San Diego and the VA San Diego Healthcare System.
The recently announced ruling by the FDA to ban menthol in tobacco products is a large step forward toward abolishing tobacco-related disease and death. It is also a big step forward to abolishing the institutional racism of the tobacco industry, which has targeted Black communities with menthol cigarettes for decades, and a step toward improving health equity. Although tobacco use across the United States has decreased from 45% of adults smoking in the 1950s to only 14% smoking today, tobacco continues to be the leading cause of preventable disease and death. Critically, some populations have not seen reductions in tobacco use that benefited others, namely communities of color, low-income populations and LGBTQ+ individuals. A key to this health disparity is the preference for menthol-flavored tobacco products by these groups. Menthol within cigarettes and cigars masks the unpleasant smell of tobacco and numbs the airways to irritation caused by tobacco smoke, while amplifying the effects of nicotine. Eighteen million people smoke menthol cigarettes, with 85% of Black smokers using menthol cigarettes – tobacco ends 45,000 Black lives every year, and menthol is the primary driver of over 38,000 of these Black deaths.
The data supporting a menthol ban has been strong for years. It is well known that flavors, like menthol, increase the appeal of tobacco and increase initiation of tobacco use by women, children, young adults, people of color, low-income, and LGBTQ+ communities. Menthol in particular increases the addictive potential of tobacco and makes it harder for menthol smokers to quit. The evidence behind banning menthol across tobacco products and flavored cigars to protect our children and young adults is also strong. Half of adolescents who try tobacco choose menthol-flavored products; 74% of teenagers aged 14-17 who smoke cigars say they do so because they enjoy the flavors.
There are many reasons why we as pulmonary and critical care medicine physicians are excited about this recent FDA ruling. The most important of which is that this rule is an important step toward advancing health equity in our country. Banning menthol-flavored tobacco products will save lives, including those of thousands of Black Americans. Banning menthol will reduce tobacco addiction, diminish youth experimentation and youth initiation of tobacco use, and increase the ability of tobacco smokers to successfully quit.
While celebrating this incredible win against the racist institution that is Big Tobacco, we must acknowledge the hard work of those who made it happen: the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council, Center for Black Health & Equity, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, American Medical Association, and many others. It is extremely exciting that menthol cigarettes, which are responsible for 10,000 deaths per year and >265,000 new smokers per year since 1980 (Le TT and Mendez D, Tob Control. 2021 Feb 25. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-056256).
will soon be a thing of the past. Next on the CHEST Health Policy and Advocacy Committee (HPAC) to-do list? Ensuring that the menthol ban is extended to e-cigarettes, another tobacco product that targets Americans of all kinds. Finally, we must continue the fight to end tobacco-related disease and death across the country and across the world by helping our patients with smoking cessation efforts and by working to prevent initiation of tobacco use (including e-cigarettes and other vaping devices) by children, at-risk individuals, and communities of all kinds.
Laura E. Crotty Alexander, MD, is with UC San Diego and the VA San Diego Healthcare System.
The recently announced ruling by the FDA to ban menthol in tobacco products is a large step forward toward abolishing tobacco-related disease and death. It is also a big step forward to abolishing the institutional racism of the tobacco industry, which has targeted Black communities with menthol cigarettes for decades, and a step toward improving health equity. Although tobacco use across the United States has decreased from 45% of adults smoking in the 1950s to only 14% smoking today, tobacco continues to be the leading cause of preventable disease and death. Critically, some populations have not seen reductions in tobacco use that benefited others, namely communities of color, low-income populations and LGBTQ+ individuals. A key to this health disparity is the preference for menthol-flavored tobacco products by these groups. Menthol within cigarettes and cigars masks the unpleasant smell of tobacco and numbs the airways to irritation caused by tobacco smoke, while amplifying the effects of nicotine. Eighteen million people smoke menthol cigarettes, with 85% of Black smokers using menthol cigarettes – tobacco ends 45,000 Black lives every year, and menthol is the primary driver of over 38,000 of these Black deaths.
The data supporting a menthol ban has been strong for years. It is well known that flavors, like menthol, increase the appeal of tobacco and increase initiation of tobacco use by women, children, young adults, people of color, low-income, and LGBTQ+ communities. Menthol in particular increases the addictive potential of tobacco and makes it harder for menthol smokers to quit. The evidence behind banning menthol across tobacco products and flavored cigars to protect our children and young adults is also strong. Half of adolescents who try tobacco choose menthol-flavored products; 74% of teenagers aged 14-17 who smoke cigars say they do so because they enjoy the flavors.
There are many reasons why we as pulmonary and critical care medicine physicians are excited about this recent FDA ruling. The most important of which is that this rule is an important step toward advancing health equity in our country. Banning menthol-flavored tobacco products will save lives, including those of thousands of Black Americans. Banning menthol will reduce tobacco addiction, diminish youth experimentation and youth initiation of tobacco use, and increase the ability of tobacco smokers to successfully quit.
While celebrating this incredible win against the racist institution that is Big Tobacco, we must acknowledge the hard work of those who made it happen: the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council, Center for Black Health & Equity, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, American Medical Association, and many others. It is extremely exciting that menthol cigarettes, which are responsible for 10,000 deaths per year and >265,000 new smokers per year since 1980 (Le TT and Mendez D, Tob Control. 2021 Feb 25. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-056256).
will soon be a thing of the past. Next on the CHEST Health Policy and Advocacy Committee (HPAC) to-do list? Ensuring that the menthol ban is extended to e-cigarettes, another tobacco product that targets Americans of all kinds. Finally, we must continue the fight to end tobacco-related disease and death across the country and across the world by helping our patients with smoking cessation efforts and by working to prevent initiation of tobacco use (including e-cigarettes and other vaping devices) by children, at-risk individuals, and communities of all kinds.
Laura E. Crotty Alexander, MD, is with UC San Diego and the VA San Diego Healthcare System.
This month in the journal CHEST®
Editor’s picks
1. POINT: Is It Ethically Permissible to Unilaterally Withdraw Life-Sustaining Treatments During Crisis Standards of Care? YesBy Dr. J. Bishop and Dr. J. Eberl
2. COUNTERPOINT: Is It Ethically Permissible to Unilaterally Withdraw Life-Sustaining Treatments for Reallocation During Crisis Standards of Care? NoBy Dr. D. Sulmasy and Dr. F. Maldonado
3. National Trends and Disparities in Health-Care Access and Coverage Among Adults With Asthma and COPD: 1997-2018By Dr. A. Gaffney, et al.
4. Geographic Variation in Racial Disparities in Mortality From Influenza and Pneumonia in the United States in the Pre-Coronavirus Disease 2019 EraBy Dr. S. Donaldson, et al.
5. Palliative Care Needs and Integration of Palliative Care Support in COPD: A Qualitative StudyBy Dr. F. Yu, et al.
6. How I Do It: Building Teams in Health CareBy. Dr. J. Stoller
Editor’s picks
Editor’s picks
1. POINT: Is It Ethically Permissible to Unilaterally Withdraw Life-Sustaining Treatments During Crisis Standards of Care? YesBy Dr. J. Bishop and Dr. J. Eberl
2. COUNTERPOINT: Is It Ethically Permissible to Unilaterally Withdraw Life-Sustaining Treatments for Reallocation During Crisis Standards of Care? NoBy Dr. D. Sulmasy and Dr. F. Maldonado
3. National Trends and Disparities in Health-Care Access and Coverage Among Adults With Asthma and COPD: 1997-2018By Dr. A. Gaffney, et al.
4. Geographic Variation in Racial Disparities in Mortality From Influenza and Pneumonia in the United States in the Pre-Coronavirus Disease 2019 EraBy Dr. S. Donaldson, et al.
5. Palliative Care Needs and Integration of Palliative Care Support in COPD: A Qualitative StudyBy Dr. F. Yu, et al.
6. How I Do It: Building Teams in Health CareBy. Dr. J. Stoller
1. POINT: Is It Ethically Permissible to Unilaterally Withdraw Life-Sustaining Treatments During Crisis Standards of Care? YesBy Dr. J. Bishop and Dr. J. Eberl
2. COUNTERPOINT: Is It Ethically Permissible to Unilaterally Withdraw Life-Sustaining Treatments for Reallocation During Crisis Standards of Care? NoBy Dr. D. Sulmasy and Dr. F. Maldonado
3. National Trends and Disparities in Health-Care Access and Coverage Among Adults With Asthma and COPD: 1997-2018By Dr. A. Gaffney, et al.
4. Geographic Variation in Racial Disparities in Mortality From Influenza and Pneumonia in the United States in the Pre-Coronavirus Disease 2019 EraBy Dr. S. Donaldson, et al.
5. Palliative Care Needs and Integration of Palliative Care Support in COPD: A Qualitative StudyBy Dr. F. Yu, et al.
6. How I Do It: Building Teams in Health CareBy. Dr. J. Stoller
Under new administration, best time to lobby for health care may be now
The ambitious infrastructure bill now being debated in the US Congress might be one of the best immediate opportunities to lobby for legislative or policy changes in delivery of health care during the current Biden administration, according to an analysis delivered at the annual health policy and advocacy conference sponsored by the American College of Chest Physicians.
The infrastructure bill is likely to be pushed forward in the filibuster-proof reconciliation process, which means “that some things might get passed that otherwise would not,” explained Keith S. Studdard, Vice President, Jeffrey J. Kimbell & Associates, Washington, DC.
With few exceptions, the key players in the health care team of President Joe Biden’s new administration are in place, according to Mr. Studdard, who is a lobbyist and health care expert. By moving quickly to fill key positions, the new administration “got off to a good start” for a health care agenda that Mr. Studdard believes will be a focus of the Biden presidency. There is some degree of urgency.
“The amount of time [the Biden administration has] to get their agenda through is fairly limited,” Mr. Studdard reported. The problems include a slim majority of fellow Democrats in the House of Representatives (222 vs 213), no majority of Democrats over Republicans in the Senate (50 vs 50), and mid-term elections that are already looming.
“Midterms historically favor the opposition party,” Mr. Studdard said. He expects party lines to harden as the midterms approach, dissipating the already limited appetite for bipartisan cooperation.
The midterms provide the basis for trying to affect change in advance of legislative gridlock, but the recently announced $2 trillion infrastructure bill is an even more compelling impetus. Infrastructure in this case is not limited to the construction of bridges and roads. Rather, this bill “is a massive package that will almost certainly touch on health care policy,” according to Mr. Studdard.
As the infrastructure bill winds its way through the legislative process, Mr. Studdard expects there will be efforts to include language that favors expansion of services and funding for health care. This includes those related to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the temporary modifications permitted under the CARES Act, which was passed during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.
For those who think that waivers and exceptions introduced in the CARES Act, such as the expansion of telehealth, should be made permanent, “this will be your main shot on goal,” Mr. Studdard said.
The debates around the ambitious infrastructure bill are “all that we will be hearing about from the legislative standpoint for the next few months,” Mr. Studdard said. He expects major lobbying efforts in regard to this legislation from a vast array of interest groups, not just those with a stake in health care.
If the bill passes, it will likely to be greatly helped by a vote under the reconciliation process. Created in 1974 to allow expedited consideration of spending legislation, the reconciliation process allows bills to be enacted with a simple majority, which is 51 votes in the Senate and 218 votes in the House. Filibustering is not permitted.
This means that the infrastructure bill, like the CARES Act, which was also passed through the reconciliation process, can be made into law even if all 50 Republican senators vote against it. As she has already done three times since taking office—most recently for COVID19 relief bill in early March—Vice President Kamala Harris can break a 50-50 tie with her vote for the administration’s agenda.
Legislation is one of two paths for altering funding and rules regarding health care in the United States. Policy is the other. For reaching decision makers with influence on policy, Mr. Studdard provided a long list of agencies, political appointees, and elected representatives that could be targeted. Many, such as the director of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), are well known, but others might be overlooked without a detailed list of the players.
As one example, he pointed to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), which is a relatively new organization within CMS. Led by Liz Fowler, a former Senate aide involved in writing the ACA, the CMMI has broad authority over several aspects of health policy, such as value-based care.
“The CCMI is something you should put on your radar. It moves with more flexibility than the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services],” Mr. Studdard said.
Mr. Studdard’s detailed overview of the intricacies of how to affect change in health policy and the likely trajectory under the Biden Administration included frequent comments about the traits, background, and goals of the specific decision makers he identified. The implication is that personal relations matter. Mr. Studdard indicated that knowing who to contact is just the first step.
For the Health Policy and Advocacy Committee, this information is critical. In his outline of the numerous paths for influencing health care policy, Mr. Studdard’s comments lead directly to strategies to lobbying goals for CHEST.
“CHEST and its Health Policy and Advocacy Committee are keeping a focus on health care policy to improve access and to improve care for our patients and reduce the burden on our providers,” according to the Chair of the Committee, Neil Freedman, MD, FCCP. Dr, Freedman is the Division Head Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy, and Immunology, Northshore University HeatlhSystem, Evanston, Illinois.
“We would hope that, in addition to the proposed infrastructure bill subsidizing some additional costs for the ACA and COBRA [Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act] and enhancing Medicaid eligibility, the bill would also provide some additional funding for the provider relief fund,” he said.
Mr. Studdard or his lobbying firm represent 62 clients with interests in health care policy.
The ambitious infrastructure bill now being debated in the US Congress might be one of the best immediate opportunities to lobby for legislative or policy changes in delivery of health care during the current Biden administration, according to an analysis delivered at the annual health policy and advocacy conference sponsored by the American College of Chest Physicians.
The infrastructure bill is likely to be pushed forward in the filibuster-proof reconciliation process, which means “that some things might get passed that otherwise would not,” explained Keith S. Studdard, Vice President, Jeffrey J. Kimbell & Associates, Washington, DC.
With few exceptions, the key players in the health care team of President Joe Biden’s new administration are in place, according to Mr. Studdard, who is a lobbyist and health care expert. By moving quickly to fill key positions, the new administration “got off to a good start” for a health care agenda that Mr. Studdard believes will be a focus of the Biden presidency. There is some degree of urgency.
“The amount of time [the Biden administration has] to get their agenda through is fairly limited,” Mr. Studdard reported. The problems include a slim majority of fellow Democrats in the House of Representatives (222 vs 213), no majority of Democrats over Republicans in the Senate (50 vs 50), and mid-term elections that are already looming.
“Midterms historically favor the opposition party,” Mr. Studdard said. He expects party lines to harden as the midterms approach, dissipating the already limited appetite for bipartisan cooperation.
The midterms provide the basis for trying to affect change in advance of legislative gridlock, but the recently announced $2 trillion infrastructure bill is an even more compelling impetus. Infrastructure in this case is not limited to the construction of bridges and roads. Rather, this bill “is a massive package that will almost certainly touch on health care policy,” according to Mr. Studdard.
As the infrastructure bill winds its way through the legislative process, Mr. Studdard expects there will be efforts to include language that favors expansion of services and funding for health care. This includes those related to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the temporary modifications permitted under the CARES Act, which was passed during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.
For those who think that waivers and exceptions introduced in the CARES Act, such as the expansion of telehealth, should be made permanent, “this will be your main shot on goal,” Mr. Studdard said.
The debates around the ambitious infrastructure bill are “all that we will be hearing about from the legislative standpoint for the next few months,” Mr. Studdard said. He expects major lobbying efforts in regard to this legislation from a vast array of interest groups, not just those with a stake in health care.
If the bill passes, it will likely to be greatly helped by a vote under the reconciliation process. Created in 1974 to allow expedited consideration of spending legislation, the reconciliation process allows bills to be enacted with a simple majority, which is 51 votes in the Senate and 218 votes in the House. Filibustering is not permitted.
This means that the infrastructure bill, like the CARES Act, which was also passed through the reconciliation process, can be made into law even if all 50 Republican senators vote against it. As she has already done three times since taking office—most recently for COVID19 relief bill in early March—Vice President Kamala Harris can break a 50-50 tie with her vote for the administration’s agenda.
Legislation is one of two paths for altering funding and rules regarding health care in the United States. Policy is the other. For reaching decision makers with influence on policy, Mr. Studdard provided a long list of agencies, political appointees, and elected representatives that could be targeted. Many, such as the director of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), are well known, but others might be overlooked without a detailed list of the players.
As one example, he pointed to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), which is a relatively new organization within CMS. Led by Liz Fowler, a former Senate aide involved in writing the ACA, the CMMI has broad authority over several aspects of health policy, such as value-based care.
“The CCMI is something you should put on your radar. It moves with more flexibility than the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services],” Mr. Studdard said.
Mr. Studdard’s detailed overview of the intricacies of how to affect change in health policy and the likely trajectory under the Biden Administration included frequent comments about the traits, background, and goals of the specific decision makers he identified. The implication is that personal relations matter. Mr. Studdard indicated that knowing who to contact is just the first step.
For the Health Policy and Advocacy Committee, this information is critical. In his outline of the numerous paths for influencing health care policy, Mr. Studdard’s comments lead directly to strategies to lobbying goals for CHEST.
“CHEST and its Health Policy and Advocacy Committee are keeping a focus on health care policy to improve access and to improve care for our patients and reduce the burden on our providers,” according to the Chair of the Committee, Neil Freedman, MD, FCCP. Dr, Freedman is the Division Head Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy, and Immunology, Northshore University HeatlhSystem, Evanston, Illinois.
“We would hope that, in addition to the proposed infrastructure bill subsidizing some additional costs for the ACA and COBRA [Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act] and enhancing Medicaid eligibility, the bill would also provide some additional funding for the provider relief fund,” he said.
Mr. Studdard or his lobbying firm represent 62 clients with interests in health care policy.
The ambitious infrastructure bill now being debated in the US Congress might be one of the best immediate opportunities to lobby for legislative or policy changes in delivery of health care during the current Biden administration, according to an analysis delivered at the annual health policy and advocacy conference sponsored by the American College of Chest Physicians.
The infrastructure bill is likely to be pushed forward in the filibuster-proof reconciliation process, which means “that some things might get passed that otherwise would not,” explained Keith S. Studdard, Vice President, Jeffrey J. Kimbell & Associates, Washington, DC.
With few exceptions, the key players in the health care team of President Joe Biden’s new administration are in place, according to Mr. Studdard, who is a lobbyist and health care expert. By moving quickly to fill key positions, the new administration “got off to a good start” for a health care agenda that Mr. Studdard believes will be a focus of the Biden presidency. There is some degree of urgency.
“The amount of time [the Biden administration has] to get their agenda through is fairly limited,” Mr. Studdard reported. The problems include a slim majority of fellow Democrats in the House of Representatives (222 vs 213), no majority of Democrats over Republicans in the Senate (50 vs 50), and mid-term elections that are already looming.
“Midterms historically favor the opposition party,” Mr. Studdard said. He expects party lines to harden as the midterms approach, dissipating the already limited appetite for bipartisan cooperation.
The midterms provide the basis for trying to affect change in advance of legislative gridlock, but the recently announced $2 trillion infrastructure bill is an even more compelling impetus. Infrastructure in this case is not limited to the construction of bridges and roads. Rather, this bill “is a massive package that will almost certainly touch on health care policy,” according to Mr. Studdard.
As the infrastructure bill winds its way through the legislative process, Mr. Studdard expects there will be efforts to include language that favors expansion of services and funding for health care. This includes those related to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the temporary modifications permitted under the CARES Act, which was passed during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.
For those who think that waivers and exceptions introduced in the CARES Act, such as the expansion of telehealth, should be made permanent, “this will be your main shot on goal,” Mr. Studdard said.
The debates around the ambitious infrastructure bill are “all that we will be hearing about from the legislative standpoint for the next few months,” Mr. Studdard said. He expects major lobbying efforts in regard to this legislation from a vast array of interest groups, not just those with a stake in health care.
If the bill passes, it will likely to be greatly helped by a vote under the reconciliation process. Created in 1974 to allow expedited consideration of spending legislation, the reconciliation process allows bills to be enacted with a simple majority, which is 51 votes in the Senate and 218 votes in the House. Filibustering is not permitted.
This means that the infrastructure bill, like the CARES Act, which was also passed through the reconciliation process, can be made into law even if all 50 Republican senators vote against it. As she has already done three times since taking office—most recently for COVID19 relief bill in early March—Vice President Kamala Harris can break a 50-50 tie with her vote for the administration’s agenda.
Legislation is one of two paths for altering funding and rules regarding health care in the United States. Policy is the other. For reaching decision makers with influence on policy, Mr. Studdard provided a long list of agencies, political appointees, and elected representatives that could be targeted. Many, such as the director of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), are well known, but others might be overlooked without a detailed list of the players.
As one example, he pointed to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), which is a relatively new organization within CMS. Led by Liz Fowler, a former Senate aide involved in writing the ACA, the CMMI has broad authority over several aspects of health policy, such as value-based care.
“The CCMI is something you should put on your radar. It moves with more flexibility than the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services],” Mr. Studdard said.
Mr. Studdard’s detailed overview of the intricacies of how to affect change in health policy and the likely trajectory under the Biden Administration included frequent comments about the traits, background, and goals of the specific decision makers he identified. The implication is that personal relations matter. Mr. Studdard indicated that knowing who to contact is just the first step.
For the Health Policy and Advocacy Committee, this information is critical. In his outline of the numerous paths for influencing health care policy, Mr. Studdard’s comments lead directly to strategies to lobbying goals for CHEST.
“CHEST and its Health Policy and Advocacy Committee are keeping a focus on health care policy to improve access and to improve care for our patients and reduce the burden on our providers,” according to the Chair of the Committee, Neil Freedman, MD, FCCP. Dr, Freedman is the Division Head Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy, and Immunology, Northshore University HeatlhSystem, Evanston, Illinois.
“We would hope that, in addition to the proposed infrastructure bill subsidizing some additional costs for the ACA and COBRA [Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act] and enhancing Medicaid eligibility, the bill would also provide some additional funding for the provider relief fund,” he said.
Mr. Studdard or his lobbying firm represent 62 clients with interests in health care policy.
REPORTING FROM THE CHEST HEALTH POLICY AND ADVOCACY CONFERENCE
Pediatric Dermatology 2021 Supplement
Pediatric Dermatology: A Supplement to Pediatric News & Dermatology News
- Dupilumab curbed itch intensity, frequency in children with severe eczema
- Vitiligo treatment options abound but consider patient goals
- Beware a pair of dermatologic emergencies in children
- Database offers snapshot of common causes of pediatric allergic contact dermatitis
- Who’s at risk for depression on isotretinoin?
- Expert shares his approach to treating warts in children
Pediatric Dermatology: A Supplement to Pediatric News & Dermatology News
- Dupilumab curbed itch intensity, frequency in children with severe eczema
- Vitiligo treatment options abound but consider patient goals
- Beware a pair of dermatologic emergencies in children
- Database offers snapshot of common causes of pediatric allergic contact dermatitis
- Who’s at risk for depression on isotretinoin?
- Expert shares his approach to treating warts in children
Pediatric Dermatology: A Supplement to Pediatric News & Dermatology News
- Dupilumab curbed itch intensity, frequency in children with severe eczema
- Vitiligo treatment options abound but consider patient goals
- Beware a pair of dermatologic emergencies in children
- Database offers snapshot of common causes of pediatric allergic contact dermatitis
- Who’s at risk for depression on isotretinoin?
- Expert shares his approach to treating warts in children
Venetoclax-based regimens show promise in relapsed/refractory AML
Key clinical point: Venetoclax-based therapies offered good efficacy with an acceptable toxicity profile in a real-life setting of patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML).
Major finding: During median follow-up of 10.7 months, composite complete remission was achieved in 55% of patients, of which 61% achieved minimal residual disease negativity. Overall survival and event-free survival were 10.7 and 4.5 months, respectively. Grade 4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and febrile neutropenia occurred in 100%, 95%, and 45% of patients, respectively.
Study details: Data come from retrospective assessment of 47 patients with relapsed/refractory AML treated with venetoclax in combination with azacytidine, decitabine, or low-dose cytarabine.
Disclosures: This study was supported by a grant from AIRC to the MYNERVA project. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Piccini M et al. J Clin Med. 2021 Apr 14. doi: 10.3390/jcm10081684.
Key clinical point: Venetoclax-based therapies offered good efficacy with an acceptable toxicity profile in a real-life setting of patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML).
Major finding: During median follow-up of 10.7 months, composite complete remission was achieved in 55% of patients, of which 61% achieved minimal residual disease negativity. Overall survival and event-free survival were 10.7 and 4.5 months, respectively. Grade 4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and febrile neutropenia occurred in 100%, 95%, and 45% of patients, respectively.
Study details: Data come from retrospective assessment of 47 patients with relapsed/refractory AML treated with venetoclax in combination with azacytidine, decitabine, or low-dose cytarabine.
Disclosures: This study was supported by a grant from AIRC to the MYNERVA project. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Piccini M et al. J Clin Med. 2021 Apr 14. doi: 10.3390/jcm10081684.
Key clinical point: Venetoclax-based therapies offered good efficacy with an acceptable toxicity profile in a real-life setting of patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML).
Major finding: During median follow-up of 10.7 months, composite complete remission was achieved in 55% of patients, of which 61% achieved minimal residual disease negativity. Overall survival and event-free survival were 10.7 and 4.5 months, respectively. Grade 4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and febrile neutropenia occurred in 100%, 95%, and 45% of patients, respectively.
Study details: Data come from retrospective assessment of 47 patients with relapsed/refractory AML treated with venetoclax in combination with azacytidine, decitabine, or low-dose cytarabine.
Disclosures: This study was supported by a grant from AIRC to the MYNERVA project. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Piccini M et al. J Clin Med. 2021 Apr 14. doi: 10.3390/jcm10081684.
Impact of age on biology and outcomes of AML
Key clinical point: Age has a significant impact on the biology and outcomes of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The proportion of patients in the favorable-risk group receiving induction remission chemotherapy and rates of complete response (CR) among patients who received induction therapy decreased with age.
Major finding: Only 6% of patients older than 70 years were in the favorable-risk group, and less than 50% of patients older than 70 years received induction therapy. After induction therapy, 81.5% of patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) and 62.4% of non-APL patients achieved CR, which decreased with increasing age.
Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis of 3,011 adult patients with AML, of which 329 patients had APL and 2,682 were non-APL patients.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the Korean Society of Hematology AML/MDS Working Party and funding from Gachon University to H Kim. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Yoo KH et al. PLoS One. 2021 May 7. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251011.
Key clinical point: Age has a significant impact on the biology and outcomes of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The proportion of patients in the favorable-risk group receiving induction remission chemotherapy and rates of complete response (CR) among patients who received induction therapy decreased with age.
Major finding: Only 6% of patients older than 70 years were in the favorable-risk group, and less than 50% of patients older than 70 years received induction therapy. After induction therapy, 81.5% of patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) and 62.4% of non-APL patients achieved CR, which decreased with increasing age.
Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis of 3,011 adult patients with AML, of which 329 patients had APL and 2,682 were non-APL patients.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the Korean Society of Hematology AML/MDS Working Party and funding from Gachon University to H Kim. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Yoo KH et al. PLoS One. 2021 May 7. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251011.
Key clinical point: Age has a significant impact on the biology and outcomes of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The proportion of patients in the favorable-risk group receiving induction remission chemotherapy and rates of complete response (CR) among patients who received induction therapy decreased with age.
Major finding: Only 6% of patients older than 70 years were in the favorable-risk group, and less than 50% of patients older than 70 years received induction therapy. After induction therapy, 81.5% of patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) and 62.4% of non-APL patients achieved CR, which decreased with increasing age.
Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis of 3,011 adult patients with AML, of which 329 patients had APL and 2,682 were non-APL patients.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the Korean Society of Hematology AML/MDS Working Party and funding from Gachon University to H Kim. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Yoo KH et al. PLoS One. 2021 May 7. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251011.
FLT3-mutated AML: FLT3i-based induction and allo-SCT in first remission improves survival
Key clinical point: Treatment with FMS-like tyrosine kinase inhibitor (FLT3i)-based induction and allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) in the first complete remission (CR1) improved survival in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with very low FLT3 allelic burden (0.1 or lower).
Major finding: The 5-year overall survival (OS) rates among patients who received FLT3i induction and allo-SCT in CR1 vs. those who neither received FLT3i nor allo-SCT in CR1 were 100% vs. 27% (P = .02). The 5-year OS rate among patients who did not receive FLT3i-based induction but underwent allo-SCT in CR1 was 71%. Moreover, patients who received FLT3i-based induction and underwent allo-SCT achieved the highest OS.
Study details: Findings are from the retrospective analysis of 50 patients with newly diagnosed FLT3-mutated AML. Patients received frontline chemotherapy without FLT3i (n=30) or induction therapy with FLT3i (n=20).
Disclosures: This study was partly supported by the MD Anderson Cancer Centre Support Grant. Some investigators including the lead author reported research funding, personal fees, grants, honoraria, consultancy, and advisory roles for various pharmaceutical companies.
Source: Yilmaz M et al. Am J Hematol. 2021 Apr 23. doi: 10.1002/ajh.26202.
Key clinical point: Treatment with FMS-like tyrosine kinase inhibitor (FLT3i)-based induction and allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) in the first complete remission (CR1) improved survival in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with very low FLT3 allelic burden (0.1 or lower).
Major finding: The 5-year overall survival (OS) rates among patients who received FLT3i induction and allo-SCT in CR1 vs. those who neither received FLT3i nor allo-SCT in CR1 were 100% vs. 27% (P = .02). The 5-year OS rate among patients who did not receive FLT3i-based induction but underwent allo-SCT in CR1 was 71%. Moreover, patients who received FLT3i-based induction and underwent allo-SCT achieved the highest OS.
Study details: Findings are from the retrospective analysis of 50 patients with newly diagnosed FLT3-mutated AML. Patients received frontline chemotherapy without FLT3i (n=30) or induction therapy with FLT3i (n=20).
Disclosures: This study was partly supported by the MD Anderson Cancer Centre Support Grant. Some investigators including the lead author reported research funding, personal fees, grants, honoraria, consultancy, and advisory roles for various pharmaceutical companies.
Source: Yilmaz M et al. Am J Hematol. 2021 Apr 23. doi: 10.1002/ajh.26202.
Key clinical point: Treatment with FMS-like tyrosine kinase inhibitor (FLT3i)-based induction and allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) in the first complete remission (CR1) improved survival in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with very low FLT3 allelic burden (0.1 or lower).
Major finding: The 5-year overall survival (OS) rates among patients who received FLT3i induction and allo-SCT in CR1 vs. those who neither received FLT3i nor allo-SCT in CR1 were 100% vs. 27% (P = .02). The 5-year OS rate among patients who did not receive FLT3i-based induction but underwent allo-SCT in CR1 was 71%. Moreover, patients who received FLT3i-based induction and underwent allo-SCT achieved the highest OS.
Study details: Findings are from the retrospective analysis of 50 patients with newly diagnosed FLT3-mutated AML. Patients received frontline chemotherapy without FLT3i (n=30) or induction therapy with FLT3i (n=20).
Disclosures: This study was partly supported by the MD Anderson Cancer Centre Support Grant. Some investigators including the lead author reported research funding, personal fees, grants, honoraria, consultancy, and advisory roles for various pharmaceutical companies.
Source: Yilmaz M et al. Am J Hematol. 2021 Apr 23. doi: 10.1002/ajh.26202.